An Attack on Science

That explains the real world where individuals have different perceptions and responses.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter

1

Reply
Sun 19 Sep, 2010 10:01 pm

@parados,

Good conclusion! LOL

0 Replies

north

1

Reply
Sun 19 Sep, 2010 10:43 pm

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

north wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!

science relies on the behaviour of the object first , which leads to " deductive " reasoning

not inductive reasoning at all

I thought inductive reasoning involved observation, which you just suggested with the word behavior...

Guys Induction is based on repeated observation where as deductive is based on a set of axiom which you hold to be true... eg

b-b=0 is true but can never be shown why it's true but taken to be true.

If I were to observe the sun rises in the east and sets in the west every single day, I can well say that tomorrow it will rise in the east and set in the west.

Now my attack is both on deductive and inductive because BOTH require assumption, even tho b-b =0 is obvious, what if we are being tricked into believing something this obvious.. same goes for inductive reasoning, so what if I observed the sun rise in the east for the past 21 years or so, that doesn't mean it will do so tomorrow!

Ultimately what I'm trying to argue is that, these sources of knowledge are not reliable and that there might be ANOTHER or NO source of reliable knowledge.

Isn't that based on your senses? Do you honestly take your senses as a reliable took for measuring or probing the universe when YOU know very well it has shown discrepancy in the past?

"Reliable" does not mean, "infallible". To say that a car is a reliable car does not mean it is impossible that it should break down. It means that it is unlikely to break down. The same is true of our sense-perception which is a reliable as it can get, but not infallible. In addition, when we are mistaken due to the fallibility of sense perception (not unreliability, fallibility) the only way we can detect such mistakes are though (you guessed it) sense-perception. So even to detect mistaken sense-perception, we rely on sense-perception. And, furthermore, how do we correct mistaken sense-perception? You guessed it again. We rely on sense-perception to correct sense-perception.

Isn't that based on your senses? Do you honestly take your senses as a reliable took for measuring or probing the universe when YOU know very well it has shown discrepancy in the past?

"Reliable" does not mean, "infallible". To say that a car is a reliable car does not mean it is impossible that it should break down. It means that it is unlikely to break down. The same is true of our sense-perception which is a reliable as it can get, but not infallible. In addition, when we are mistaken due to the fallibility of sense perception (not unreliability, fallibility) the only way we can detect such mistakes are though (you guessed it) sense-perception. So even to detect mistaken sense-perception, we rely on sense-perception. And, furthermore, how do we correct mistaken sense-perception? You guessed it again. We rely on sense-perception to correct sense-perception.

this is not stated exactly corretly... We have learned to used sense perceptions to build more sensitive instraments of test... Which allow us to learn more which adds to the sensitivity of our sensing equipment... At some point, we involve matter itself in our tests as with the gas used to sense radiation in Geiger counters... We begin with sight and from there are ables to sense a whole range of radiation, even being able to translate what was invisable into visible wavelengths of light... Yes, sense-perception is at the beginning and end of the process, but some where in the middle is a more objective measure, and the ultimate test of all reality, our lives, and whether anything goes beyond the threashold of sense, to pain, and death....

Isn't that based on your senses? Do you honestly take your senses as a reliable took for measuring or probing the universe when YOU know very well it has shown discrepancy in the past?

"Reliable" does not mean, "infallible". To say that a car is a reliable car does not mean it is impossible that it should break down. It means that it is unlikely to break down. The same is true of our sense-perception which is a reliable as it can get, but not infallible. In addition, when we are mistaken due to the fallibility of sense perception (not unreliability, fallibility) the only way we can detect such mistakes are though (you guessed it) sense-perception. So even to detect mistaken sense-perception, we rely on sense-perception. And, furthermore, how do we correct mistaken sense-perception? You guessed it again. We rely on sense-perception to correct sense-perception.

this is not stated exactly corretly... We have learned to used sense perceptions to build more sensitive instraments of test... Which allow us to learn more which adds to the sensitivity of our sensing equipment... At some point, we involve matter itself in our tests as with the gas used to sense radiation in Geiger counters... We begin with sight and from there are ables to sense a whole range of radiation, even being able to translate what was invisable into visible wavelengths of light... Yes, sense-perception is at the beginning and end of the process, but some where in the middle is a more objective measure, and the ultimate test of all reality, our lives, and whether anything goes beyond the threashold of sense, to pain, and death....

What is not stated correctly? That sense perception is reliable, but not infallible? No idea what you think is not stated correctly. And I suspect, neither do you.

The demand for rational proofs in science indicates a failure to keep distinct the broad realm of rationality and the narrow realm of rational certainty: it is an untenable, an unreasonable demand.

********************************************

Assume that we have deliberately made it our task to live in this unknown world of ours; to adjust ourselves to it as well as we can; to take advantage of the opportunities we can find in it; and to explain it, if possible (we need not assume that it is), and as far as possible, with the help of laws and explanatory theories. If we have made this our task, then there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error--of conjecture and refutation: of boldly proposing theories; of trying our best to show that these are erroneous; and of accepting them tentatively if our critical efforts are unsuccessful.

Based on the rhetorical standards to be found in political debate at this site, i can see no reason to fault that "logic."

0 Replies

Fido

1

Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2010 10:47 am

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:

Who said anything about the earth rotating?

Isn't that based on your senses? Do you honestly take your senses as a reliable took for measuring or probing the universe when YOU know very well it has shown discrepancy in the past?

"Reliable" does not mean, "infallible". To say that a car is a reliable car does not mean it is impossible that it should break down. It means that it is unlikely to break down. The same is true of our sense-perception which is a reliable as it can get, but not infallible. In addition, when we are mistaken due to the fallibility of sense perception (not unreliability, fallibility) the only way we can detect such mistakes are though (you guessed it) sense-perception. So even to detect mistaken sense-perception, we rely on sense-perception. And, furthermore, how do we correct mistaken sense-perception? You guessed it again. We rely on sense-perception to correct sense-perception.

this is not stated exactly corretly... We have learned to used sense perceptions to build more sensitive instraments of test... Which allow us to learn more which adds to the sensitivity of our sensing equipment... At some point, we involve matter itself in our tests as with the gas used to sense radiation in Geiger counters... We begin with sight and from there are ables to sense a whole range of radiation, even being able to translate what was invisable into visible wavelengths of light... Yes, sense-perception is at the beginning and end of the process, but some where in the middle is a more objective measure, and the ultimate test of all reality, our lives, and whether anything goes beyond the threashold of sense, to pain, and death....

What is not stated correctly? That sense perception is reliable, but not infallible? No idea what you think is not stated correctly. And I suspect, neither do you.

I do not disagree with your conclusion but your argument since it neglects the fact that we involve our technology along with sense perception to amplify our ability and senses, and to do so our conclusions based upon sense perception need to be supported and to work consistently or no method of producing technology could be supported... Let me give you an example... There is a guy who comes by here occasionally from the gas company, and he says there is a chunk of iron buried near the gas line that corrodes at a regular rate, and in doing so keeps the gas line from corroding because of the charge it gives off in corroding... And by parking fifty feet away and turning on his sensing equipment he can tell what the discharge rate is, and so tell if his gas line is in danger of corrsion, and this from a piece of iron ten feet under the ground... Now we can all sense electricity, to a point but the tools built upon our senses are much more sensitive than ourselves, and it has to be got right, because death waits for answers to be wrong...The test of truth as always is life... So reliability is possible and essential... Truth as an absolute, and absolute proof are unlikely...The proof and the truth are what works...

The demand for rational proofs in science indicates a failure to keep distinct the broad realm of rationality and the narrow realm of rational certainty: it is an untenable, an unreasonable demand.

********************************************

Assume that we have deliberately made it our task to live in this unknown world of ours; to adjust ourselves to it as well as we can; to take advantage of the opportunities we can find in it; and to explain it, if possible (we need not assume that it is), and as far as possible, with the help of laws and explanatory theories. If we have made this our task, then there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error--of conjecture and refutation: of boldly proposing theories; of trying our best to show that these are erroneous; and of accepting them tentatively if our critical efforts are unsuccessful.

-Karl Popper, SCIENCE: CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

It is not deliberate, but it is our task to live, and since we cannot change our nature we change our forms... We cannot and will not evolve, so we must adapt, and we do that with our forms, or physical forms and social forms and our forms of understanding...

0 Replies

kennethamy

1

Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:04 am

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:

Who said anything about the earth rotating?

Isn't that based on your senses? Do you honestly take your senses as a reliable took for measuring or probing the universe when YOU know very well it has shown discrepancy in the past?

"Reliable" does not mean, "infallible". To say that a car is a reliable car does not mean it is impossible that it should break down. It means that it is unlikely to break down. The same is true of our sense-perception which is a reliable as it can get, but not infallible. In addition, when we are mistaken due to the fallibility of sense perception (not unreliability, fallibility) the only way we can detect such mistakes are though (you guessed it) sense-perception. So even to detect mistaken sense-perception, we rely on sense-perception. And, furthermore, how do we correct mistaken sense-perception? You guessed it again. We rely on sense-perception to correct sense-perception.

this is not stated exactly corretly... We have learned to used sense perceptions to build more sensitive instraments of test... Which allow us to learn more which adds to the sensitivity of our sensing equipment... At some point, we involve matter itself in our tests as with the gas used to sense radiation in Geiger counters... We begin with sight and from there are ables to sense a whole range of radiation, even being able to translate what was invisable into visible wavelengths of light... Yes, sense-perception is at the beginning and end of the process, but some where in the middle is a more objective measure, and the ultimate test of all reality, our lives, and whether anything goes beyond the threashold of sense, to pain, and death....

What is not stated correctly? That sense perception is reliable, but not infallible? No idea what you think is not stated correctly. And I suspect, neither do you.

I do not disagree with your conclusion but your argument since it neglects the fact that we involve our technology along with sense perception to amplify our ability and senses, and to do so our conclusions based upon sense perception need to be supported and to work consistently or no method of producing technology could be supported... Let me give you an example... There is a guy who comes by here occasionally from the gas company, and he says there is a chunk of iron buried near the gas line that corrodes at a regular rate, and in doing so keeps the gas line from corroding because of the charge it gives off in corroding... And by parking fifty feet away and turning on his sensing equipment he can tell what the discharge rate is, and so tell if his gas line is in danger of corrsion, and this from a piece of iron ten feet under the ground... Now we can all sense electricity, to a point but the tools built upon our senses are much more sensitive than ourselves, and it has to be got right, because death waits for answers to be wrong...The test of truth as always is life... So reliability is possible and essential... Truth as an absolute, and absolute proof are unlikely...The proof and the truth are what works...

If you think there is a defect in my argument, it must be (1) either that the conclusion fails to follow from the premises, or that (2) one or more of the premises is false (or both (1) and (2)). So could you please say which of these defects you find? And would you be specific? Would you say just why the the conclusion fails to follow; or which of the premises you believe is false?

0 Replies

attano

1

Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2010 03:11 pm

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

But we are trying to arrive at a source of knowledge that is "perfect" in every single way, and it appears like even mathematics(the "God" of all knowledge) can be called on to doubt!

What good is having a degree of certainty, when you can have the actual phenomena it self.. or in other words, why prefer the analogy(degree of certainty) when you can have the phenomena(absolute knowledge) it self!

Well, this turned out more of a epistemological question!

Personally, I am not trying to attain this perfect source, It is a myth...
A degree of certainty is the best we can get, it is good as long as you can predict the outcome, and that is as good as it gets.

The interesting part is when one cannot predict any outcome and still need certainty...

But we are trying to arrive at a source of knowledge that is "perfect" in every single way, and it appears like even mathematics(the "God" of all knowledge) can be called on to doubt!

What good is having a degree of certainty, when you can have the actual phenomena it self.. or in other words, why prefer the analogy(degree of certainty) when you can have the phenomena(absolute knowledge) it self!

Well, this turned out more of a epistemological question!

Personally, I am not trying to attain this perfect source, It is a myth...
A degree of certainty is the best we can get, it is good as long as you can predict the outcome, and that is as good as it gets.

The interesting part is when one cannot predict any outcome and still need certainty...

Certainty in the enemy of knowledge because with certainty the quest for truth ends... If what you know works, it works; and that is the best situation imaginable...